Archivo de la etiqueta: International humanitarian law

The Syrian conflict has caused a huge civilian suffering since spring 2011 with battles, massacres, widespread torture and forced disappearances, displacement of populations and a break-down of important structures like the health and education systems. More than 100,000 people have deadand more than one third of the population has been displaced, and tensions in the region have soared.

The military attack seems to be (hopefully) on hold now, after the US and Russia agreement over the Syrian chemical weapons program. However there are reasons to keep this conflict this conflict now and for the future, due to an array of reasons. Firstly, the conflict is far from resolved and internal, regional and international actors continue (and will do so in the near future) playing their interests there. Violence is far from gone. This welcomed agreement cannong make us forget that we (the world) have been on the brink of another potentially catastrophic intervention in the Middle East. And issues of international legality, external intervention, power, management of arms control and proliferation, and humanitarian responsibility, are still here.

Why was an external intervention considered now?

Last year, the US president Barack Obama signaled that the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime would be a “red line” in the face of the international community. It was after the August chemical attack with about 1.000 people dead when statements and negotiations about a strong (military) international response soared.

Military action was first proposed by the US, UK and France to deter further actions by the Assad regime. The underlying arguments are: the regime has crossed the ‘red line’ and it is imperative to deter it and other actors from eventually using those weapons; International Law bans chemical weapons and action is imperative; we must protect the Syrians from further massacres; the credibility of the West is at stake, etc.

Finally the British Government could not go ahead due to the rejection of military action by the Parliament, on August 29, and president Obama spent time seeking approval from Congress. France said it was still prepared to take action at any moment.

Different military options were considered and finally the decision involved the use of limited air strikes to enforce a no-fly zone, control the arsenal of chemical weapons and further support for the rebel groups although not to the point of ‘regime change’.

In the first days of September the US Government seemed to rush towards getting Congress approval. But a new Russian diplomatic initiative has apparently allowed to gain (at least) some time as it proposes a 4 step plan to put Syrian weapons and chemical program under control of international observers.

Russia and the US reached an agreement about the Syrian chemical arsenal and disarmament on September 14.

A military intervention is legal or legitimate when facing crimes against humanity because there is a moral reason to act; Law needs to evolve to address new situations

President Obama and allied leaders should declare that international law has evolved and there are compelling moral reasons to bomb Syria even without Security Council approval.

Jurist Geoffrey Robertson argues that “the Security Council is an unsatisfactory tribunal to decide urgent moral questions because it can be rendered ineffective by politics” (as, some authors suggest, is happening now with the Russia and China positions).

An attack with a widely forbidden weapon as chemicals needs an international response as a way to end impunity and to prevent further use

President Obama: “What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price?” “What is the purpose of the international system that we’ve built if a prohibition on the use of chemical weapons that has been agreed to by the government of the world’s people and approved overwhelmingly by the Congress of the United States is not enforced?”

Richard Haas argues that “chemical weapons, like any weapon of mass destruction, including biological and nuclear, cannot become a normal weapon, cannot be used. The taboo, the barrier cannot in any way be diluted. This far transcends Syria.”

If United States does not act decisively now, it will be revisiting same issue months later when conflict worsens and Assad uses these weapons again.

It is necessary to defend American and Western interests in the region

American interests in Syria are clear: preventing terrorists from acquiring chemical weapons; depriving Iran of its most important ally and staging-base in the Middle East; and preventing al Qaeda from establishing an uncontested safe haven in the Levant. Reasonable people can disagree about the extent to which President Obama’s proposed “limited strike” will secure these interests, but not about whether the interests are real or vital.

It is a decision on limited strikes, of last resort, and taken without further desire to involve in more wars

Secretary Kerry: “I remember Iraq. Secretary Hagel remembers Iraq. General Dempsey especially remembers Iraq…And so we are especially sensitive, Chuck and I, to never again asking any member of Congress to take a vote on faulty intelligence.”

Against Military Action

External military intervention is not legal nor ethical

The UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has insisted the use of force will only be legal if it is self-defense or undertaken with authorization from the UN Security Council, as set out in the UN Charter. He is probably the most prominent voice heard in this regard.

An attack on Syria without UN Security Council authorization sets a more dangerous precedent than Assad’s use of chemical weapons.

The main objective of any action undertaken should be the safety of the Syrian population and a political solution for the conflict. Both would be undermined by an attack

International Crisis Group: At best, the impact of a military strike would have “unpredictable” consequences for Syrians. Only a ceasefire and political solution can secure the “welfare of the Syrian people.”

African Forum: Multilateralism and the Rule of International Law are the best and only ways to achieve a political way out of the Syrian crisis.

Why a red line on chemical weapons now?

“Red lines have been crossed more than once”: Iraq used them both on war with Iran and at home; and during the 2003 Iraq war, the US itself used white phosphorous (considered a chemical weapon when used directly against soldiers).

Why the red line only affects chemical weapons?

Why this red line? With over a hundred thousand dead, over five million people displaced by civil war, and atrocities of diverse kinds, why focus on chemical weapons? Is it that deaths by chemical weapons are somehow more appalling and outrageous? Why is it that a death toll greater than 5,000, 10,000 or 100,000 does not cross a red line, but the deaths from chemical weapons do?

There is not enough evidence about authorship of the attack

Intelligence pointing toward Assad’s culpability in August 21 chemical weapons strike is not compelling enough. Having in mind the red line set up by the US it is difficult to see the advantages of their use for the regime, and Russia had warned before about other possibilities.

On 22 August 1864, only a year after the creation of the International Red Cross Movement, a new event marks the beginning of International Humanitarian Law (IHL). Twelve States signed a Treaty establishing the obligation to spare and protect wounded soldiers and the people and equipment involved in their care during war times. The first Geneva Convention was born.

The inner circle of IHL are the three Geneva Conventions that were extensively revised in 1949 and relate to the treatment of prisoners of war and the immunity of medical personnel on the battlefield. The fourth Convention was also added, and stipulates that warring parties have the obligation to protect civilians. This text was born out of the World War II and its horrific atrocities, including not only concentration camps but indiscriminate bombings of civilian cities and the deliberate starving of others. Now, 194 States have ratified them and thus have become international customary law.

The main current challenge for IHL is implementation, since in modern wars civilians are not only collateral damage but the main victims, subject to different forms of warfare. More than 90% of victims of modern wars are civilians, including those who die, but also those subject to forced displacement, mutilations and hunger and disease as a result of a war.

Although the Conventions clearly state that all precautions should be taken to save civilian lives and property (and infrastructure essential for survival), and this provision applies to all parties on a conflict, the reality is often very different. Different warring parties in conflict (be them State or non-State actors) continue to attack civilians without due respect for the obligations under IHL.

Modern conflicts have extremely complicated the application of Law. Frequently they are diffuse and chronic phenomenon of violence that last over time. At times they are not fought between two identifiable armies dressed in uniform but by a variety of groups with different aims and that can include informal militias and criminal gangs.

However, according to the ICRC the question is not validity since this is ensured, but how to enforce those rules and make the breakers accountable. One has to remember here that the Red Cross Movement is not just an NGO but an international organization and also the guardian of the Conventions. What is at stake, the ICRC recognizes, is how to enforce humanitarian principles like the protection of civilians in current armed conflicts.

If you wish to know more about IHL I recommend this webpage, where you can find the main instruments, actors and objectives.

As I commented at the beginning of this blog, the scope is wide and the issues to be covered many. Maybe too much! To address them, sometimes I write about complex and far reaching topics, while others try to segment them in smaller parts. Finally there are aspects that are both concrete and important, all related to violence and peacebuilding. This is one of those cases.

The question at the title may appear as a paradox, if we identify drones just as a weapon for targeted (and distant) killings. But there are many other issues related to drones that are already subject to debate and becoming a practical tool in different situations. So, let’s go ahead: Can drones make a contribution to peacebuilding?

The technological advancements related to drones are setting the pace for a multiplicity of debates in international relations. The most known and controversial use of drones is that of the US in the ‘war on terror’: targeted killings of leaders and militants of Al Qaeda and other groups designated as enemies.

The US has been the first in developing and adopting this technology in war. Those who defend it argument that drones are accurate and allow ‘clean’ operations, with no casualties in one’s side. But as technology develops, they will be cheaper and accesible for many. What will this mean when other countries use them in the same ways? And when non State armed groups (rebels, organized crime and the forth) own them?

Let’s take another point. Although it is only at first steps, drones are becoming a tool for peacebuilding missions and humanitarian operations. Here also are positions for and against, and the questions and doubts at stake are different but critical. In peacebuilding missions, their main use is the gathering of information about potential threats, something that would allow a quicker response. Drones have also been proposed for the monitoring of human rights in conflict or unsafe areas.

The information gathered by drones in peacebuilding missions, can be used to build complaints in the International Criminal Court? What are the implications of this possibility for future operations? Who will be responsible if information about threats to civilians is available in real time but protection is not guaranteed? And a last questions: can technology be a substitute for the political will to reach peace?

At the beginning of this year, the UN approved drones as a tool for the Stabilization Mission in the DRC (MONUSCO), to gather real time information about potential threats to civilians and monitoring smuggling activities. It is a good case study since MONUSCO is by large the biggest UN peace mission; it has a new mandate including the potential use of force for the protection of civilians, and drone deployment is a new avenue to explore. It also raises many doubts, of course.

If you are interested in the use of drones in peacebuilding, maybe you with to read this article that I published recently.